good then - so I think we don''t invest any further effort on thinking
about
or handling this case until a legit need to handle finer-grained
associations between config settings and directory areas arises. As long as
we''re reasonably convinced that we *could* do so without causing
breakage to
existing usage - defer until needed!
YAGNI!
http://xp.c2.com/YouArentGonnaNeedIt.html
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=36529
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAGNI
~ Deb
_____
From: Jeff Barczewski [mailto:jeff.barczewski at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 9:09 AM
To: djlewis at acm.org; masterview-devel at rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: configuring multiple MIO
Sounds like a good approach.
On 7/6/06, Deb Lewis <djlewis at acm.org> wrote:
Side note: we''d briefly kicked around some thoughts on whether it
might be
important to be able to specify some of the config settings on multiple MIO
trees vs. the single MIO structure that we currently have. Was thinking
about that and I''m informally convinced that it would be fairly do-able
without breaking the existing config protocol if we ever wanted to do so.
To support multiple MIO trees, existing protocol would remain and map behind
the scenes to the "primary" MIO tree, with some additional protocol
provided
to allow adding and configuring options for additional sections.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/masterview-devel/attachments/20060706/ffc86345/attachment.html